EDRIElection Dispute Resolution Index

§ 2(2) WahlPrüfG explicitly enumerates the parties with standing to lodge an election contest (Einspruch): (1) every eligible voter (jeder Wahlberechtigte), (2) groups of eligible voters (jede Gruppe von Wahlberechtigten), and (3) in official capacity, the state election directors (Landeswahlleiter), the federal election director (Bundeswahlleiter), and the president of the Bundestag (Präsident des Bundestages). This enumeration is exhaustive and codified in statute, satisfying the criterion for procedural clarity regarding standing.

“Den Einspruch kann jeder Wahlberechtigte, jede Gruppe von Wahlberechtigten und in amtlicher Eigenschaft jeder Landeswahlleiter, der Bundeswahlleiter und der Präsident des Bundestages einlegen.”

§ 5 WahlPrüfG addresses procedural aspects of election contest adjudication (preliminary review, hearing preparation, witness examination, information gathering) but does not specify which court or tribunal has original jurisdiction to hear election contests. The section references 'der Ausschuss' (the committee) as the body conducting proceedings, but does not establish the constitutional or statutory basis designating this committee as the court of original jurisdiction. While the section clarifies procedural rules once a challenge is before the committee, it does not answer the threshold question of venue—i.e., which forum is competent to receive and initially decide election contests. A statute fully satisfying this criterion would explicitly name the tribunal (e.g., 'Wahlprüfungsausschuss des Bundestags') and ground its jurisdiction in statutory law.

“Der Ausschuss tritt in eine Vorprüfung ein, insbesondere darüber, ob der Einspruch form- und fristgerecht eingelegt ist und ob Termin zur mündlichen Verhandlung anzuberaumen ist.”

§ 2(4) WahlPrüfG clearly codifies a filing deadline for election contests (Einspruch) of two months from election day (Wahltag). The statute specifies a fixed temporal trigger (the election day) and a precise duration (two months). This satisfies the criterion's requirement that the deadline be specified by statute. An additional provision allows the Bundestag President to file within one month of discovering circumstances constituting an electoral defect, which further clarifies procedural timing. The rule is unambiguous and provides clear notice of the filing window.

“Der Einspruch muß binnen einer Frist von zwei Monaten nach dem Wahltag beim Bundestag eingehen.”

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: § 83 BWO addresses procedural implementation of repeat elections (Wiederholungswahl) following a Wahlprüfungsverfahren (election contest) decision. It specifies which ballot districts repeat voting, rules for voter registers, ballot certificates, candidate nominations, and the state election director's authority to adapt procedures to special circumstances. However, the section contains no codification of standards of proof or evidentiary admissibility rules for election contests themselves. It presupposes that a Wahlprüfungsentscheidung (election contest decision) has already been rendered and governs only the mechanics of executing that decision. The substantive standards for what evidence proves contestable irregularities, burdens of proof, and admissibility thresholds are not addressed in this section. The statute delegates some discretionary authority to election commissions regarding candidate nomination changes (Absatz 6) and to the state election director regarding procedure adaptation (Absatz 7), but these are administrative implementation powers, not codified evidentiary standards for the contest proceeding itself.

§ 76 BWO establishes that the Kreiswahlleiter (district election official) clarifies doubts about election regularity and may conduct a recount (Nachzählung von Stimmzetteln) of ballot papers, with public notice required. However, the statute provides minimal procedural detail: it does not specify trigger thresholds for mandatory recounts, detailed counting procedures, evidentiary standards for when recounts must occur, cost allocation, or binding effect on final results. The text requires notification and references review of ballot bundles but lacks comprehensive codification of 'who counts, how, with what evidence.' The framework is skeletal rather than fully defined in statute. Administrative directives and regulations likely fill substantive gaps, placing portions of recount procedure outside statutory text.

“Ergeben sich aus der Wahlniederschrift oder aus sonstigen Gründen Bedenken gegen die Ordnungsmäßigkeit des Wahlgeschäfts, so klärt sie der Kreiswahlleiter soweit wie möglich auf. Im Falle einer Nachzählung von Stimmzetteln macht der Kreiswahlleiter die Nachzählung durch Aushang am oder im Eingang des Sitzungsgebäudes bekannt.”

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: § 76 BWO addresses the determination and establishment of election results at the district level, including verification of ballot protocols, correction of findings, and procedures for recounting ballots (Nachzählung). However, the section does not enumerate specific triggers for automatic or petition-based recounts. While subsection (1) mentions that recounts may occur 'aus sonstigen Gründen' (for other reasons) and references procedures for announcing recounts, it does not codify threshold margins, specific conditions requiring a recount, procedures for filing recount petitions, or evidentiary standards that would trigger a mandatory recount. The statute establishes procedural steps for conducting a recount once initiated but does not clearly delineate the substantive triggers that would activate those procedures. This falls short of the EDRI standard requiring enumerated recount triggers in statute.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: § 19a of the PartG (Parteiengesetz — German Party Financing Act) addresses the procedure for setting and allocating state funding to political parties based on election results and accounting reports. The section establishes deadlines, calculations of vote shares, and conditions for receiving public funding. However, it contains no provisions whatsoever regarding recount procedures, petition-based recounts, cost allocation for recounts, or the effects of recount findings. This statute governs party financing mechanisms, not election dispute resolution or recount procedures. The criterion requires codification of recount cost allocation — who bears costs under various recount outcomes — which is entirely absent from this section.

§ 76 BWO establishes a recount procedure (Nachzählung) with triggers (concerns about propriety of election procedures), notification requirements, and documentation. However, the statute does not codify the legal effects of a recount finding with precision. Subsection (2) grants the Kreiswahlausschuss authority to 'correct' (berichtigen) determinations by the Wahlvorstand and make binding decisions on vote validity, which implies that recount findings are binding and mandatory for amendment of the official result. Yet the statute does not explicitly state in a dedicated provision that recount findings shall: (a) be binding on subsequent certification; (b) mandate amendment of the official tally; or (c) trigger mandatory modifications to state-level reports. The effect is derivable from the correction authority granted, but not codified with the clarity required for RECT.4. A dual-scholar review would note that while the procedure is clear, the express statutory formulation of recount-finding effect (as binding, mandatory, or merely advisory) is underdeveloped.

“Der Kreiswahlausschuss ist berechtigt, Feststellungen des Wahlvorstandes zu berichtigen und dabei auch über die Gültigkeit abgegebener Stimmen abweichend zu beschließen.”

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: § 42 describes the process and actors responsible for certifying election results (state electoral committee's preliminary determination, federal electoral committee's final determination), but does not establish a binding statutory deadline by which certification must occur. The provision specifies what must be done and in what sequence, but not when it must be completed. A certification deadline would require explicit temporal language (e.g., 'within X days' or 'by [specific date]'). Without such a deadline, certification timing remains subject to administrative discretion regarding when the federal electoral committee will complete its work, even if the procedural steps themselves are codified.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: § 11 PartG addresses the composition, election, and internal governance of party boards (Vorstand) within German political parties under the Party Law (Parteiengesetz). It contains no provisions whatsoever concerning election certification, recounts, contests, or any mechanism to stay certification proceedings. The section is entirely focused on intra-party organizational structure—minimum board size, membership eligibility, board functions, and formation of executive committees. It has no application to the criterion TIME.2, which requires a statutory mechanism to stay certification while disputes are pending. This is a categorical mismatch between the subject matter of the statute and the criterion being evaluated.